Este tópico está presentemente marcado como "inativo" —a última mensagem tem mais de 90 dias. Reative o tópico publicando uma resposta.
1vy0123
…to comfort a friend in grief, may inform the discussion at
Einstein said, " | … … Religion
http://www.librarything.com/topic/143251
As best I can recall it was not in a book by him.
Einstein said, " | … … Religion
http://www.librarything.com/topic/143251
As best I can recall it was not in a book by him.
2Gail.C.Bull
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if Einstein actually said that. Atheists like to hold Einstein up as an example of the perfect atheist, but if you actually read up on him, you soon discover that he was a spiritual man. He believed intellectual discoveries and furthering human knowledge, but he was also a practicing Christian (Lutheran, I think, as a lot of German families are, but don't quote me on that). He saw no contradiction in having both religion and science as the defining parts of his identity.
The idea of Einstein as atheist is a truly modern conceit. The modern world simply cannot accept the idea that religion and science are not polar opposites and so it cannot reconcile itself to the fact that the greatest scientific mind of the modern age was also a practicing Christian.
Einstein also said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge." and "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." But I doubt very much you'll hear many scientific-atheists quoting those ones either.
Actually, one of my favourite quotes by Einstein was this one:
"Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves."
The idea of Einstein as atheist is a truly modern conceit. The modern world simply cannot accept the idea that religion and science are not polar opposites and so it cannot reconcile itself to the fact that the greatest scientific mind of the modern age was also a practicing Christian.
Einstein also said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge." and "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." But I doubt very much you'll hear many scientific-atheists quoting those ones either.
Actually, one of my favourite quotes by Einstein was this one:
"Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves."
3timspalding
No, he said it. What he meant by it is the question.
As discussed elsewhere, the evidence is strong that Einstein was a pantheist, not a conventional theist or an atheist.
As discussed elsewhere, the evidence is strong that Einstein was a pantheist, not a conventional theist or an atheist.
4Eschwa
A good source for some of Einstein's writings on religion is
http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/index.html
http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/index.html
5LesMiserables
Many people wish to 'claim the brain'.
Who cares really?
Only one thing is certain. Einstein was not a monotheist.
Who cares really?
Only one thing is certain. Einstein was not a monotheist.
6timspalding
Depends what you mean by monotheist. Are pantheists monotheists? If everything is God, then there's only one, I suppose. Certainly he wasn't a credal monotheist, and "monotheist" wouldn't be the first word that springs to mind to describe him.
7bookishglee
Einstein's monotheism was for the unified field theory. A heretic to quantum theory polytheism.
8quicksiva
"Everyone likes me, but no one understands me." Albert Einstein
“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings”.
The quotation above may be Einstein's most familiar statement of his beliefs. These words are frequently quoted, but a citation is seldom given. The quotation can be found in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp (The Open Court Publishing Co., La Salle, Illinois, Third Edition, 1970) pp. 659 - 660. There the source is given as the New York Times, 25 April 1929, p. 60, col. 4. Ronald W. Clark (pp. 413-414) gives a detailed account of the origin of Einstein's statement:
While the argument over his birthday present had been going on, the theory of relativity had been used to pull him into a religious controversy from which there emerged one of his much-quoted statements of faith.
It began when Cardinal O'Connell of Boston, who had attacked Einstein's General Theory on previous occasions, told a group of Catholics that it "cloaked the ghastly apparition of atheism" and "befogged speculation, producing universal doubt about God and His Creation."
Einstein, who had often reiterated his remark of 1921 to Archbishop Davidson-"It makes no difference. It is purely abstract science"-was at first uninterested.
Then, on April 24, Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, faced Einstein with the simple five-word cablegram: "Do you believe in God?"
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists," he replied, "not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
Years later he expanded this in a letter …. "I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza," he wrote. "But I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason."
See:
Arnold V. Lesikar,
Professor Emeritus
Dept. of Physics, Astronomy, and Engineering Science,
St. Cloud State University
See also A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age
In 1952 Einstein wrote these words in his foreword to Man and His Gods by Homer Smith, which can be read online for free.
“Professor Smith has kindly submitted his book to me before publication. After reading it thoroughly and with intense interest I am glad to comply with his request to give him my impression.
The work is a broadly conceived attempt to portray man's fear-induced animistic and mythic ideas with all their far-flung transformations and interrelations. It relates the impact of these phantasmagorias on human destiny and the causal relationships by which they have become crystallized into organized religion.
This is a biologist speaking, whose scientific training has disciplined him in a grim objectivity rarely found in the pure historian. This objectivity has not, however, hindered him from emphasizing the boundless suffering which, in its end results, this mythic thought has brought upon man.
Professor Smith envisages as a redeeming force, training in objective observation of all that is available for immediate perception and in the interpretation of facts without preconceived ideas. In his view, only if every individual strives for truth can humanity attain a happier future; the atavisms in each of us that stand in the way of a friendlier destiny can only thus be rendered ineffective.”
- Albert Einstein
“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings”.
The quotation above may be Einstein's most familiar statement of his beliefs. These words are frequently quoted, but a citation is seldom given. The quotation can be found in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp (The Open Court Publishing Co., La Salle, Illinois, Third Edition, 1970) pp. 659 - 660. There the source is given as the New York Times, 25 April 1929, p. 60, col. 4. Ronald W. Clark (pp. 413-414) gives a detailed account of the origin of Einstein's statement:
While the argument over his birthday present had been going on, the theory of relativity had been used to pull him into a religious controversy from which there emerged one of his much-quoted statements of faith.
It began when Cardinal O'Connell of Boston, who had attacked Einstein's General Theory on previous occasions, told a group of Catholics that it "cloaked the ghastly apparition of atheism" and "befogged speculation, producing universal doubt about God and His Creation."
Einstein, who had often reiterated his remark of 1921 to Archbishop Davidson-"It makes no difference. It is purely abstract science"-was at first uninterested.
Then, on April 24, Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, faced Einstein with the simple five-word cablegram: "Do you believe in God?"
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists," he replied, "not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
Years later he expanded this in a letter …. "I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza," he wrote. "But I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason."
See:
Arnold V. Lesikar,
Professor Emeritus
Dept. of Physics, Astronomy, and Engineering Science,
St. Cloud State University
See also A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age
In 1952 Einstein wrote these words in his foreword to Man and His Gods by Homer Smith, which can be read online for free.
“Professor Smith has kindly submitted his book to me before publication. After reading it thoroughly and with intense interest I am glad to comply with his request to give him my impression.
The work is a broadly conceived attempt to portray man's fear-induced animistic and mythic ideas with all their far-flung transformations and interrelations. It relates the impact of these phantasmagorias on human destiny and the causal relationships by which they have become crystallized into organized religion.
This is a biologist speaking, whose scientific training has disciplined him in a grim objectivity rarely found in the pure historian. This objectivity has not, however, hindered him from emphasizing the boundless suffering which, in its end results, this mythic thought has brought upon man.
Professor Smith envisages as a redeeming force, training in objective observation of all that is available for immediate perception and in the interpretation of facts without preconceived ideas. In his view, only if every individual strives for truth can humanity attain a happier future; the atavisms in each of us that stand in the way of a friendlier destiny can only thus be rendered ineffective.”
- Albert Einstein
9Jesse_wiedinmyer
"Everyone likes me, but no one understands me." Albert Einstein
I could have sworn that that was John Lennon.
I could have sworn that that was John Lennon.
10Gail.C.Bull
>9 Jesse_wiedinmyer:: Except for the fact that not everyone liked John Lennon.
12quicksiva
In a 1943 conversation with William Hermanns recorded in Hermanns' book Einstein and the Poet, Einstein said: "As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world."
In the early 40’s the Purim story could have been on the mind of many thoughtful Jews.
On one level, the Purim story represents the annual struggle to end the harsh reign of winter. The original characters appear to have been Babylonian gods: Ishtar, the goddess of fertility; Marduk, the chief guardian of the heavens; and Haman, the underworld devil. Ishtar and Haman, life and death, vie with each other for supremacy. Ishtar triumphs; spring returns; and life is renewed. Yahveh, the Hebrew God, played no part in the celebration, which was filled with theatrical renditions of the contest. Noisemaking and masquerading were necessary to trick the evil gods and to aid the good ones. Sexual orgies promoted fertility. Merriment was the order of the day.
The megilla, or biblical Book of Esther, replaced Ishtar and Marduk with Jewish mortals (Esther and Mordecai); Haman became a Persian "devil." The holiday's name, "Purim," meaning "lots" or "dice," is meant to remind us of how the Ishtar and evil character Haman drew lots to determine the fate of the Jews of Persia. According to the Book of Esther, were it not for the goodness and intervention of Esther ( Ishtar) and her uncle Mordecai in the court of King Ahasuerus, the Jews certainly would have been exterminated by the king's vizier Haman. Purim became the joyous celebration of an epic Jewish victory over anti-Semitism and threatened annihilation — an enactment of the fantasies of centuries of persecuted Jews.
At first, because of the Book of Esther's secular nature — it is the only book in the Bible that does not mention God — it was excluded from the sacred canon. It is likely that political conflict between the rabbis and the Maccabees brought the Book of Esther into the Bible and Purim into the official Jewish calendar. Uncomfortable with Purim but faced with a festival that the people would not abandon, the rabbinic leaders found a way to suit it to their purposes. On the thirteenth of Adar, the day before Purim, Jews celebrated Nicanor's Day, commemorating a major Maccabean victory over a Greek general named Nicanor. The rabbis, to minimize the influence of their rivals, the Maccabees, turned Nicanor's Day into the Fast of Esther, immediately preceding Purim, and gave the playful folk holiday their grudging blessing. Nicanor's Day disappeared and Purim grew more popular. Purim shpiels (plays) and satires allowed ordinary people to "sass" their "betters" and voice grievances that remained unuttered throughout the year. Purim balls and carnivals encouraged revelry and drunkenness.
Rabbinic Judaism continues to celebrate Purim with great festivity. In addition to reading the scroll of Esther aloud in the synagogue to a unique or original trop (cantillation), people dress in costumes depicting the major characters of the story. During the telling of the story, the heroes are cheered and the villain, Haman, is booed and his name is drowned out by the sound of noise-makers or gragers.
For the Humanistic Jews, who provided this information, Purim is a celebration of the heroic in Jewish history, a tribute to human ethical role models. Human courage and ingenuity are at the center of a story about the triumph of good over evil. Humanistic Jews celebrate the heroes and chastise the villains of the world through modern Purim shpiels. Reading the megilla — accompanied by gragers, cheers, and boos — provides a starting point from which to move beyond the framework of the biblical story. The masks of Purim become the faces of Jewish men and women worthy of emulation, from Mordecai to Theodore Herzl and Albert Einstein, and from Esther to Henrietta Szold and Golda Meir. Humanistic Purim celebrations often feature children's costume parades and carnivals. These lighthearted activities have a serious side, recalling the heroism of individuals and the organized resistance to oppression of the Jewish people.
As for Ishtar, "Sedet super universum,"
In the early 40’s the Purim story could have been on the mind of many thoughtful Jews.
On one level, the Purim story represents the annual struggle to end the harsh reign of winter. The original characters appear to have been Babylonian gods: Ishtar, the goddess of fertility; Marduk, the chief guardian of the heavens; and Haman, the underworld devil. Ishtar and Haman, life and death, vie with each other for supremacy. Ishtar triumphs; spring returns; and life is renewed. Yahveh, the Hebrew God, played no part in the celebration, which was filled with theatrical renditions of the contest. Noisemaking and masquerading were necessary to trick the evil gods and to aid the good ones. Sexual orgies promoted fertility. Merriment was the order of the day.
The megilla, or biblical Book of Esther, replaced Ishtar and Marduk with Jewish mortals (Esther and Mordecai); Haman became a Persian "devil." The holiday's name, "Purim," meaning "lots" or "dice," is meant to remind us of how the Ishtar and evil character Haman drew lots to determine the fate of the Jews of Persia. According to the Book of Esther, were it not for the goodness and intervention of Esther ( Ishtar) and her uncle Mordecai in the court of King Ahasuerus, the Jews certainly would have been exterminated by the king's vizier Haman. Purim became the joyous celebration of an epic Jewish victory over anti-Semitism and threatened annihilation — an enactment of the fantasies of centuries of persecuted Jews.
At first, because of the Book of Esther's secular nature — it is the only book in the Bible that does not mention God — it was excluded from the sacred canon. It is likely that political conflict between the rabbis and the Maccabees brought the Book of Esther into the Bible and Purim into the official Jewish calendar. Uncomfortable with Purim but faced with a festival that the people would not abandon, the rabbinic leaders found a way to suit it to their purposes. On the thirteenth of Adar, the day before Purim, Jews celebrated Nicanor's Day, commemorating a major Maccabean victory over a Greek general named Nicanor. The rabbis, to minimize the influence of their rivals, the Maccabees, turned Nicanor's Day into the Fast of Esther, immediately preceding Purim, and gave the playful folk holiday their grudging blessing. Nicanor's Day disappeared and Purim grew more popular. Purim shpiels (plays) and satires allowed ordinary people to "sass" their "betters" and voice grievances that remained unuttered throughout the year. Purim balls and carnivals encouraged revelry and drunkenness.
Rabbinic Judaism continues to celebrate Purim with great festivity. In addition to reading the scroll of Esther aloud in the synagogue to a unique or original trop (cantillation), people dress in costumes depicting the major characters of the story. During the telling of the story, the heroes are cheered and the villain, Haman, is booed and his name is drowned out by the sound of noise-makers or gragers.
For the Humanistic Jews, who provided this information, Purim is a celebration of the heroic in Jewish history, a tribute to human ethical role models. Human courage and ingenuity are at the center of a story about the triumph of good over evil. Humanistic Jews celebrate the heroes and chastise the villains of the world through modern Purim shpiels. Reading the megilla — accompanied by gragers, cheers, and boos — provides a starting point from which to move beyond the framework of the biblical story. The masks of Purim become the faces of Jewish men and women worthy of emulation, from Mordecai to Theodore Herzl and Albert Einstein, and from Esther to Henrietta Szold and Golda Meir. Humanistic Purim celebrations often feature children's costume parades and carnivals. These lighthearted activities have a serious side, recalling the heroism of individuals and the organized resistance to oppression of the Jewish people.
As for Ishtar, "Sedet super universum,"
13bookishglee
#11
I think the UFT is an earlier precursor to the GUT, kind of the oesophagus of theoretical physics. And instead of the GUT being the heart of the matter it seems to lead to the TOE (theory of everything). We can only hope after that is HCE (here comes everybody).
I think the UFT is an earlier precursor to the GUT, kind of the oesophagus of theoretical physics. And instead of the GUT being the heart of the matter it seems to lead to the TOE (theory of everything). We can only hope after that is HCE (here comes everybody).
14LesMiserables
By monotheist I refer to the traditional notion of an omnipotent omniscient god, and so that rules out the pantheistic notion I suppose.
Its all hocus-pocus to me.
Its all hocus-pocus to me.
15Arten60
It seems to me that many people are completely oblivious the mystical and metaphysical essays written by Einstein (Cosmic Religious Feelings) and the other scientists involved in getting quantum physics off the ground.
A lot of disinformation abounds about Einstein the problem is exacerbated by the term God. Einstein constantly talked and wrote about God, the problem is he was not talking about the God of the monotheirstic religions. Einstein like plenty of other scientists before and since saw creation, intelligence and design in the Universe. They helped build the emerging paradigm which puts materialism in its sarcophagus:
About positivism, Einstein in fact said, “I am not a positivist. Positivism states that what cannot be observed does not exist. This conception is scientifically indefensible,
for it is impossible to make valid affirmations of what people ‘can’ or ‘cannot’ observe. One would have to say ‘only what we observe exists,’ which is obviously false.”
Roy Abraham Varghese
A lot of disinformation abounds about Einstein the problem is exacerbated by the term God. Einstein constantly talked and wrote about God, the problem is he was not talking about the God of the monotheirstic religions. Einstein like plenty of other scientists before and since saw creation, intelligence and design in the Universe. They helped build the emerging paradigm which puts materialism in its sarcophagus:
About positivism, Einstein in fact said, “I am not a positivist. Positivism states that what cannot be observed does not exist. This conception is scientifically indefensible,
for it is impossible to make valid affirmations of what people ‘can’ or ‘cannot’ observe. One would have to say ‘only what we observe exists,’ which is obviously false.”
Roy Abraham Varghese
16LesMiserables
Einstein saw creation and intelligence in the Universe?
Really. Can you show me where he said that.
Really. Can you show me where he said that.
18LesMiserables
I'm sure it was a tortoise?
19Tid
No no! Ask Terry Pratchett, it was definitely a turtle - if it was a tortoise, then I would have to say "testudo" I think :-)
20Arten60
@ Halicarnassus
Have you ever read anything he wrote?
I mean one of his most famous ever statements which turned out to be wrong was: God does not play dice.
Einstein wrote plenty about God go and read his mystical essay which I refered to above. Clearly Einstein was a man who saw the Mystery that is imbubed in the Universe its complete hogwash bandied about by militiant Atheist like Dawkins that Einstein never believed in Creation!
Another persistent theme in Dawkins’s book, and in those of some of the other “new atheists,” is the claim that no scientist worth his or her salt believes in God. Dawkins, for instance, explains away Einstein’s statements about God as metaphorical references to nature. Einstein himself, he says, is at best an atheist (like Dawkins) and at worst a pantheist. But this bit of Einsteinian exegesis is patently dishonest. Dawkins
references only quotes that show Einstein’s distaste for organized and revelational religion. He deliberately leaves out not just Einstein’s comments about his belief in a
“superior mind” and a “superior reasoning power” at work in the laws of nature, but also Einstein’s specific denial that he is either a pantheist or an atheist.
This deliberate distortion is rectified in this book.
Anthony Flew/Roy Abraham Varghese
There is a God
Have you ever read anything he wrote?
I mean one of his most famous ever statements which turned out to be wrong was: God does not play dice.
Einstein wrote plenty about God go and read his mystical essay which I refered to above. Clearly Einstein was a man who saw the Mystery that is imbubed in the Universe its complete hogwash bandied about by militiant Atheist like Dawkins that Einstein never believed in Creation!
Another persistent theme in Dawkins’s book, and in those of some of the other “new atheists,” is the claim that no scientist worth his or her salt believes in God. Dawkins, for instance, explains away Einstein’s statements about God as metaphorical references to nature. Einstein himself, he says, is at best an atheist (like Dawkins) and at worst a pantheist. But this bit of Einsteinian exegesis is patently dishonest. Dawkins
references only quotes that show Einstein’s distaste for organized and revelational religion. He deliberately leaves out not just Einstein’s comments about his belief in a
“superior mind” and a “superior reasoning power” at work in the laws of nature, but also Einstein’s specific denial that he is either a pantheist or an atheist.
This deliberate distortion is rectified in this book.
Anthony Flew/Roy Abraham Varghese
There is a God
21LesMiserables
> 20
Your question - No, I have not. I was surprised and curious to your comments in #15.
I disagree with the 'militant' tag that Dawkins is encumbered with. I think in the main, it is a reaction by touchy theists who feel threatened by having their world-view and the social perks that come with them, scrutinised and examined by a courageous brilliant mind.
Your question - No, I have not. I was surprised and curious to your comments in #15.
I disagree with the 'militant' tag that Dawkins is encumbered with. I think in the main, it is a reaction by touchy theists who feel threatened by having their world-view and the social perks that come with them, scrutinised and examined by a courageous brilliant mind.
22Tid
21
I agree that Dawkins has a brilliant mind. I also agree that his diatribes against religion stem from his very understandable aversion to the kind of fundamentalist nonsense he has come against in his time.
But courageous? I don't see that. His antipathy seems irrational at times, and his scholarship on the matter is lamentable. Someone once said that Dawkins on religion is like listening to someone declaiming on the whole of science because they once read The Book of British Birds .
He has almost single-handedly polarised the debate into "science versus religion", which these days is not an issue for any but the aforementioned fundamentalists. Apples and ethics. You can't compare the two.
I agree that Dawkins has a brilliant mind. I also agree that his diatribes against religion stem from his very understandable aversion to the kind of fundamentalist nonsense he has come against in his time.
But courageous? I don't see that. His antipathy seems irrational at times, and his scholarship on the matter is lamentable. Someone once said that Dawkins on religion is like listening to someone declaiming on the whole of science because they once read The Book of British Birds .
He has almost single-handedly polarised the debate into "science versus religion", which these days is not an issue for any but the aforementioned fundamentalists. Apples and ethics. You can't compare the two.
23LesMiserables
> 21
...and his scholarship on the matter is lamentable. Someone once said that Dawkins on religion is like listening to someone declaiming on the whole of science because they once read The Book of British Birds .
He has almost single-handedly polarised the debate into "science versus religion", which these days is not an issue for any but the aforementioned fundamentalists. Apples and ethics. You can't compare the two.
Have you read the god delusion?
Much of it is based on logic and analysis. He goes through all the theological and philosophical arguments and trashes them all.
So to say he relies on Science is not fair.
I say courageous, because just like Hitchens, he attacks monotheistic religion in the Age of the Nutter.
...and his scholarship on the matter is lamentable. Someone once said that Dawkins on religion is like listening to someone declaiming on the whole of science because they once read The Book of British Birds .
He has almost single-handedly polarised the debate into "science versus religion", which these days is not an issue for any but the aforementioned fundamentalists. Apples and ethics. You can't compare the two.
Have you read the god delusion?
Much of it is based on logic and analysis. He goes through all the theological and philosophical arguments and trashes them all.
So to say he relies on Science is not fair.
I say courageous, because just like Hitchens, he attacks monotheistic religion in the Age of the Nutter.
24rrp
Courageous? Some atheists disagree.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowa...
and also think that The God Delusion is riddled with logical and analytical errors.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowa...
and also think that The God Delusion is riddled with logical and analytical errors.
25Tid
23
I have The God Delusion as an audiobook on my Kindle. I've begun to listen to it, and already I've found that his scholarship really is lamentable. Is it logical to isolate one passage from the OT and use it to lambast the whole of religion with? Is it analytical to ignore the Eastern philosophies and redefine 'religion' as the monotheistic Western Abrahamic ones? And so on, and so on.
Dawkins dresses up his barely-concealed contempt with the apparent voice of reason, but if you scratch the surface, reason is lacking. As for 'trashing all theological and philosophical arguments'... well, that says it all really. How can everyone from Pythagoras to Mother Theresa be wrong on absolutely everything? Aristotle is a great philosopher too, and look at the contribution he made to science.
I have The God Delusion as an audiobook on my Kindle. I've begun to listen to it, and already I've found that his scholarship really is lamentable. Is it logical to isolate one passage from the OT and use it to lambast the whole of religion with? Is it analytical to ignore the Eastern philosophies and redefine 'religion' as the monotheistic Western Abrahamic ones? And so on, and so on.
Dawkins dresses up his barely-concealed contempt with the apparent voice of reason, but if you scratch the surface, reason is lacking. As for 'trashing all theological and philosophical arguments'... well, that says it all really. How can everyone from Pythagoras to Mother Theresa be wrong on absolutely everything? Aristotle is a great philosopher too, and look at the contribution he made to science.
26LesMiserables
> 25
His scholarship puts theologians' efforts to shame, let's be fair.
Quite simply he uses examples from the OT to highlight the misogynist violent intolerant culture it teaches and he corroborates those examples with evidence both from within the religious texts and from practical real life examples.
I have found also that religious apologists will find any excuse to attack Science and scientists. Exploiting yet undiscovered evidence or gaps, in a wider conclusive swath of data is their favourite.
My experience has also led me to believe that most persecutors of Dawkins or other scientists have never really read any of their work. They rely on sound-bites based on unsupported claims from 'experts' who have analysed their work (usually bishops, third rate agenda driven postgraduates from religious backgrounds intent on claiming fame through noxious scholarship yet supported by the religious dollars of the gullible and desperate).
Anyway, back to Einstein?
I think the main point we have to bear in mind is that he was first a foremost a brilliant empiricist who quite clearly was not a proponent or follower of any type of organised religion.
Monotheists especially, wish to claim the brain as some kind of proof that there are important scientists of the first degree, that will somehow lend credibility to their mythologising.
All but the most hardened adherents to dogmatic faith systems recognise that like almost all rational people, they either doubt or refute any notions of an omnipotent omniscient creator, or worse still one who yet exists watching the chaos unfold before their eyes and stand back as three year-old children are sexually molested and as single parents die of cancer or that people die horribly and painfully. Omnipotence and omniscience mean exactly that.
So, it is this insistence on claiming people like Einstein or insisting on religious interference in the mechanisms of society that leads to persecution of atheists, scientists etc.
His scholarship puts theologians' efforts to shame, let's be fair.
Quite simply he uses examples from the OT to highlight the misogynist violent intolerant culture it teaches and he corroborates those examples with evidence both from within the religious texts and from practical real life examples.
I have found also that religious apologists will find any excuse to attack Science and scientists. Exploiting yet undiscovered evidence or gaps, in a wider conclusive swath of data is their favourite.
My experience has also led me to believe that most persecutors of Dawkins or other scientists have never really read any of their work. They rely on sound-bites based on unsupported claims from 'experts' who have analysed their work (usually bishops, third rate agenda driven postgraduates from religious backgrounds intent on claiming fame through noxious scholarship yet supported by the religious dollars of the gullible and desperate).
Anyway, back to Einstein?
I think the main point we have to bear in mind is that he was first a foremost a brilliant empiricist who quite clearly was not a proponent or follower of any type of organised religion.
Monotheists especially, wish to claim the brain as some kind of proof that there are important scientists of the first degree, that will somehow lend credibility to their mythologising.
All but the most hardened adherents to dogmatic faith systems recognise that like almost all rational people, they either doubt or refute any notions of an omnipotent omniscient creator, or worse still one who yet exists watching the chaos unfold before their eyes and stand back as three year-old children are sexually molested and as single parents die of cancer or that people die horribly and painfully. Omnipotence and omniscience mean exactly that.
So, it is this insistence on claiming people like Einstein or insisting on religious interference in the mechanisms of society that leads to persecution of atheists, scientists etc.
27timspalding
>26 LesMiserables:
I have to say I disagree. Dawkins may have some sort of deep horse-sense argument against historical religions, but it can't be said to involve much in the way of scholarship. He simply doesn't engage with religion as a topic worthy of his interest. Like many an LT atheist, very real facts and distinctions that have been understood by dull-witted scholars for millennia—such as the distinction between belief in an inspired text and fundamentalism—don't seem to penetrate. And, really, while he certain is an extraordinary scientist, scholarship is something different from science, usually being understood to involve not novel insight but the process of sifting through, collating and synthesizing a large body of information and interpretation. He's just not that sort of academic. I'm sure he'd be the first to tell you he couldn't pass a graudate qual—or probably even an undergraduate survey test—in the religions he disapproves of. He wouldn't because he thinks it's all bullshit. That has a certain blunt appeal to it, and—heck—maybe he's right. But let's not call loud and certain know-nothingism "scholarship."
I have to say I disagree. Dawkins may have some sort of deep horse-sense argument against historical religions, but it can't be said to involve much in the way of scholarship. He simply doesn't engage with religion as a topic worthy of his interest. Like many an LT atheist, very real facts and distinctions that have been understood by dull-witted scholars for millennia—such as the distinction between belief in an inspired text and fundamentalism—don't seem to penetrate. And, really, while he certain is an extraordinary scientist, scholarship is something different from science, usually being understood to involve not novel insight but the process of sifting through, collating and synthesizing a large body of information and interpretation. He's just not that sort of academic. I'm sure he'd be the first to tell you he couldn't pass a graudate qual—or probably even an undergraduate survey test—in the religions he disapproves of. He wouldn't because he thinks it's all bullshit. That has a certain blunt appeal to it, and—heck—maybe he's right. But let's not call loud and certain know-nothingism "scholarship."
28LesMiserables
> 27
I really can't agree, and yes we are going around in circles. Far from getting in the last word, I just wanted to mention that I have read a lot of Dawkins' material, from The God Delusion to Unweaving the Rainbow to The Greatest Show on Earth covering a wide body of knowledge from Religion to Understanding Awe to Evolutionary Biology and other stuff and assessing his work against other scholars and scientists, he presents credible, highly evidenced work. I mean to say he talks the talk and walks the walk.
Would we hold for instance, Alister McGrath, as a scholar? Many on here do. But on what basis? I tend to reserve that title for one who does more than study, or we might as well throw in astrologers and alchemists too. Dawkins deals with reality.
I really can't agree, and yes we are going around in circles. Far from getting in the last word, I just wanted to mention that I have read a lot of Dawkins' material, from The God Delusion to Unweaving the Rainbow to The Greatest Show on Earth covering a wide body of knowledge from Religion to Understanding Awe to Evolutionary Biology and other stuff and assessing his work against other scholars and scientists, he presents credible, highly evidenced work. I mean to say he talks the talk and walks the walk.
Would we hold for instance, Alister McGrath, as a scholar? Many on here do. But on what basis? I tend to reserve that title for one who does more than study, or we might as well throw in astrologers and alchemists too. Dawkins deals with reality.
29timspalding
>28 LesMiserables:
Can we agree to distinguish between knowing a lot about religion and being right about its (non-)existence?
Would we hold for instance, Alister McGrath, as a scholar? Many on here do. But on what basis?
As a scholar of religion, he has the equivalent of a doctorate in theology from Oxford, as well as holding a "personal" chair in theology at Oxford—since relinquished to take one up at King's College, although he maintains a position at Oxford. He's extensively published, has a number of honorary degrees from top-notch institutions, delivered a half-dozen named lecture series, is a fellow of the Royal Society, etc. Meanwhile, unlike Darkins—for what it's worth—he also has a degree "on the other side," an Oxford doctorate in biology.
If that doesn't qualify as a very distinguished scholar in his field, I think you have a very peculiar understanding of the term!
Dawkins, meanwhile, is CLEARLY a distinguished scientist. His work in biology will be talked about a century from now. But his anti-religion work is essentially popular, rather than academic in focus. And, unlike, say, McGrath, who holds doctorates in both biology and theology, Dawkins doesn't hold any sort of degree in religion whatsoever. Now, his brilliant mind may mean much here, but, frankly, his obvious lack of real knowledge of the field of religion is glaringly apparent.(1) It may come down to taste. If you have a certain level of disrespect for an idea, perhaps you're not obligated to understand it. Some of us are dissatisfied with ignorant hostility, even from a brilliant man.
1. Much depends on the argument. For Dawkins to argue that the evolution can create highly complex systems, and therefore does not require God, does not require much in the way of understanding of religion. All the work is on the "science" side. But blithely asserting what Christians believe (eg., we're creationists, when we're not), or interpreting three-thousand year old sacred texts, demands something more.
Can we agree to distinguish between knowing a lot about religion and being right about its (non-)existence?
Would we hold for instance, Alister McGrath, as a scholar? Many on here do. But on what basis?
As a scholar of religion, he has the equivalent of a doctorate in theology from Oxford, as well as holding a "personal" chair in theology at Oxford—since relinquished to take one up at King's College, although he maintains a position at Oxford. He's extensively published, has a number of honorary degrees from top-notch institutions, delivered a half-dozen named lecture series, is a fellow of the Royal Society, etc. Meanwhile, unlike Darkins—for what it's worth—he also has a degree "on the other side," an Oxford doctorate in biology.
If that doesn't qualify as a very distinguished scholar in his field, I think you have a very peculiar understanding of the term!
Dawkins, meanwhile, is CLEARLY a distinguished scientist. His work in biology will be talked about a century from now. But his anti-religion work is essentially popular, rather than academic in focus. And, unlike, say, McGrath, who holds doctorates in both biology and theology, Dawkins doesn't hold any sort of degree in religion whatsoever. Now, his brilliant mind may mean much here, but, frankly, his obvious lack of real knowledge of the field of religion is glaringly apparent.(1) It may come down to taste. If you have a certain level of disrespect for an idea, perhaps you're not obligated to understand it. Some of us are dissatisfied with ignorant hostility, even from a brilliant man.
1. Much depends on the argument. For Dawkins to argue that the evolution can create highly complex systems, and therefore does not require God, does not require much in the way of understanding of religion. All the work is on the "science" side. But blithely asserting what Christians believe (eg., we're creationists, when we're not), or interpreting three-thousand year old sacred texts, demands something more.
30LesMiserables
> 29
I simply cannot take anyone seriously who publishes 'scholarly' papers on angels.
I distinguish McGrath's sane scholarly work from his delusions about heavens, angels, devils etc
Probably a bit like the way I would acknowledge Wallace's work on evolution, but dismiss his delusions about seances etc.
That discernment is allowed you know.
I simply cannot take anyone seriously who publishes 'scholarly' papers on angels.
I distinguish McGrath's sane scholarly work from his delusions about heavens, angels, devils etc
Probably a bit like the way I would acknowledge Wallace's work on evolution, but dismiss his delusions about seances etc.
That discernment is allowed you know.
31timspalding
I simply cannot take anyone seriously who publishes 'scholarly' papers on angels.
I distinguish McGrath's sane scholarly work from his delusions about heavens, angels, devils etc
These sentences are in conflict.
I distinguish McGrath's sane scholarly work from his delusions about heavens, angels, devils etc
These sentences are in conflict.
32timspalding
In any case, I think I've shown how frankly weird it is to say "Would we hold for instance, Alister McGrath, as a scholar? Many on here do. But on what basis?" The basis is pretty clear. The mystifying thing is why you don't merely disagree with him on arguments or wahtever, but deny any basis for considering someone a scholar whom—it seems to me—any a monkey from Mars would admit fit the common definition.
33LesMiserables
> 31
Not at all.
Embedded in the sentence is the assumption one understands I cannot take seriously the man at that moment.
Perhaps I should have been clearer but we do it all the time. eg Stop! (meaning You Stop!)
"Mr McGrath I cannot take you seriously with this paper on angels."
Not at all.
Embedded in the sentence is the assumption one understands I cannot take seriously the man at that moment.
Perhaps I should have been clearer but we do it all the time. eg Stop! (meaning You Stop!)
"Mr McGrath I cannot take you seriously with this paper on angels."
34timspalding
>33 LesMiserables:
Ah, I see. You didn't mean you can't take his seriously, you mean you can only take him seriously some of the time. Would you concede he's a scholar of his field all the time, or not?
Ah, I see. You didn't mean you can't take his seriously, you mean you can only take him seriously some of the time. Would you concede he's a scholar of his field all the time, or not?
35timspalding
By the way, what article about angels are you referring to? I don't find any in his CV, either popular or academic.
36LesMiserables
> 34
I would agree with you that he is a scholar when he is dealing with normality - the sciences etc.
Yes, I take him seriously some of the time. If Dawkins wrote papers on fairies and goblins, I would not take those seriously but would retain a serious interest in his other work.
I'm pretty sure we all do that in life; sort the wheat from the chaff.
Whilst I have your attention Tim, and this is quite unrelated, do you happen to know how many 'scholars' of the alleged historical Jesus are Christians themselves?
I would agree with you that he is a scholar when he is dealing with normality - the sciences etc.
Yes, I take him seriously some of the time. If Dawkins wrote papers on fairies and goblins, I would not take those seriously but would retain a serious interest in his other work.
I'm pretty sure we all do that in life; sort the wheat from the chaff.
Whilst I have your attention Tim, and this is quite unrelated, do you happen to know how many 'scholars' of the alleged historical Jesus are Christians themselves?
37timspalding
I would agree with you that he is a scholar when he is dealing with normality - the sciences etc.
Well, I wouldn't go so far necessarily. He has a doctorate in biology from Oxford, but—to my knowledge—he doesn't do normal work in biology apart from his interest in the topic of science and religion.
Whilst I have your attention Tim, and this is quite unrelated, do you happen to know how many 'scholars' of the alleged historical Jesus are Christians themselves?
I don't have percentages. I suspect that the "entire field" would show a distinct majority, but if you sorted for the ones in top universities, it would be lower.
As for the "alleged historical Jesus" I can really only laugh. One can entertain considerable doubt as to the content of what Jesus was all about, said, did, etc. It's a difficult problem. But to not believe there was such an individual is just silly. It is certainly well outside of what scholars of the topic—of all religions and none—think, almost as silly as intelligent design among biologists.
Well, I wouldn't go so far necessarily. He has a doctorate in biology from Oxford, but—to my knowledge—he doesn't do normal work in biology apart from his interest in the topic of science and religion.
Whilst I have your attention Tim, and this is quite unrelated, do you happen to know how many 'scholars' of the alleged historical Jesus are Christians themselves?
I don't have percentages. I suspect that the "entire field" would show a distinct majority, but if you sorted for the ones in top universities, it would be lower.
As for the "alleged historical Jesus" I can really only laugh. One can entertain considerable doubt as to the content of what Jesus was all about, said, did, etc. It's a difficult problem. But to not believe there was such an individual is just silly. It is certainly well outside of what scholars of the topic—of all religions and none—think, almost as silly as intelligent design among biologists.
38LesMiserables
> 35
Tim, you really are nit picking now. I'm not sure if he has written a specific paper on the ranks of angels in isolation, but I do know he discusses angels in Christian Theology so perhaps that might not count for some but it counts for me (and I suppose many millions of others)
Tim, you really are nit picking now. I'm not sure if he has written a specific paper on the ranks of angels in isolation, but I do know he discusses angels in Christian Theology so perhaps that might not count for some but it counts for me (and I suppose many millions of others)
39timspalding
>37 timspalding:
Wait. You said "I simply cannot take anyone seriously who publishes 'scholarly' papers on angels." But you didn't check if that was true, and apparently don't care. I'm supposed to assume that, because you think he probably mentions angels somewhere in a general account of christian theology, that's the same thing?
Wait. You said "I simply cannot take anyone seriously who publishes 'scholarly' papers on angels." But you didn't check if that was true, and apparently don't care. I'm supposed to assume that, because you think he probably mentions angels somewhere in a general account of christian theology, that's the same thing?
40LesMiserables
> 37
I'm not sure why you would find it silly. People lie all the time. It only takes one convincing whopper in an age of word of mouth communication to convince a population ignorant and indeed happy to cling to a comfort blanket such as heaven and redemption.
The fact is Tim, and you may not like it, but there is no evidence that the jesus in all the hymns and that, ever existed, other than in the minds of people.
I'm not sure why you would find it silly. People lie all the time. It only takes one convincing whopper in an age of word of mouth communication to convince a population ignorant and indeed happy to cling to a comfort blanket such as heaven and redemption.
The fact is Tim, and you may not like it, but there is no evidence that the jesus in all the hymns and that, ever existed, other than in the minds of people.
41timspalding
Incidentally, so far as I can see, he mentions angels six times there, always in the context of discussing what other Christians have believed about them. He doesn't theorize about them, or whatever. If you say that Augustine believed in angels, am I to call you silly for it? It's true. Isn't that what science is all about?
42LesMiserables
> 37
Well no. I already knew from listening to him in the past that he believes in all that stuff.
Now now Tim, you should know that building straw men, doesn't look good on your CV.
Well no. I already knew from listening to him in the past that he believes in all that stuff.
Now now Tim, you should know that building straw men, doesn't look good on your CV.
43timspalding
>40 LesMiserables:
Are you going to make serious arguments about the historical Jesus? Because i can answer them, just as I would answer bizarre objections to the historicity of a similarly attested figure of ancient history—not exactly Alexander the Great, but above Alexander of Abonoteichos. Ancient history is a field, you know, with sources and methods and so forth. Or are you just going to baldly assert stuff?
Are you going to make serious arguments about the historical Jesus? Because i can answer them, just as I would answer bizarre objections to the historicity of a similarly attested figure of ancient history—not exactly Alexander the Great, but above Alexander of Abonoteichos. Ancient history is a field, you know, with sources and methods and so forth. Or are you just going to baldly assert stuff?
44LesMiserables
I suppose you will now attempt to deny that the protestant cleric and theologian who is a Christian apologist does not believe in angels?
Oh dear.
Oh dear.
45timspalding
>42 LesMiserables:
But here's where we can distinguish between scholarship and just opinion. An atheist could write a textbook on Christian theology, just as a Christian could write a history of atheistic thought. It's a topic in intellectual history about which true and false things can be said, good and bad scholarship perpetrated. Do you think surveys of Christian belief written by non-Christians aren't scholarship either?
But here's where we can distinguish between scholarship and just opinion. An atheist could write a textbook on Christian theology, just as a Christian could write a history of atheistic thought. It's a topic in intellectual history about which true and false things can be said, good and bad scholarship perpetrated. Do you think surveys of Christian belief written by non-Christians aren't scholarship either?
46LesMiserables
> 43
Or are you just going to baldly assert stuff?
Well no. You are doing that. Show me your evidence. The gospels?
Or are you just going to baldly assert stuff?
Well no. You are doing that. Show me your evidence. The gospels?
47LesMiserables
> 45
I think Tim, you need to sort out the difference between Religious Study and Theology. Your example doesn't work.
I think Tim, you need to sort out the difference between Religious Study and Theology. Your example doesn't work.
48timspalding
>45 timspalding:
The existence of Jesus is attested by the Gospels, which involve a number of independent sources (that is, there are at least three streams of non-related texts), the letters of Paul, which come before the Gospels and do not influence them, and some other miscellaneous NT texts (eg., Hebrews, minor letters). He is also mentioned by Josephus—one passage badly mauled by emendations from which something can, however, be recovered, and a shorter one nobody has ever questioned. A larger set of early documents attest that people at an early date believed there was such a person, although they offer very little in the way of detail. Such an array of documents of such an obviously early date would be very hard to explain as the spontaneous creation of a non-connecting series of inventive liars. It would require a big, weird conspiracy theory. Ancient historians would never imagine such a thing about any similar set of ancient evidence. They'd never imagine a cabal of people making up a person out of whole cloth and proceeding to invent independent sources all about him. They'd never imagine a whole religious movement could emerge, spreading across the Mediterranean world in a few decades, commemorating an imaginary founder said to live in the very recent past.
It just doesn't compute. This is why there are virtually no professional ancient historians who imagine Jesus didn't exist. It's just not something would ever suggest from the sources available if there wasn't a powerful ideological reason to do so.
I recommend Ehman's Did Jesus Exist? Ehman is an agnostic, a critic of Christianity and (IMHO) takes overly hostile and minimalist approaches to his texts. But he's no nut, and he lays the facts out clearly.
The existence of Jesus is attested by the Gospels, which involve a number of independent sources (that is, there are at least three streams of non-related texts), the letters of Paul, which come before the Gospels and do not influence them, and some other miscellaneous NT texts (eg., Hebrews, minor letters). He is also mentioned by Josephus—one passage badly mauled by emendations from which something can, however, be recovered, and a shorter one nobody has ever questioned. A larger set of early documents attest that people at an early date believed there was such a person, although they offer very little in the way of detail. Such an array of documents of such an obviously early date would be very hard to explain as the spontaneous creation of a non-connecting series of inventive liars. It would require a big, weird conspiracy theory. Ancient historians would never imagine such a thing about any similar set of ancient evidence. They'd never imagine a cabal of people making up a person out of whole cloth and proceeding to invent independent sources all about him. They'd never imagine a whole religious movement could emerge, spreading across the Mediterranean world in a few decades, commemorating an imaginary founder said to live in the very recent past.
It just doesn't compute. This is why there are virtually no professional ancient historians who imagine Jesus didn't exist. It's just not something would ever suggest from the sources available if there wasn't a powerful ideological reason to do so.
I recommend Ehman's Did Jesus Exist? Ehman is an agnostic, a critic of Christianity and (IMHO) takes overly hostile and minimalist approaches to his texts. But he's no nut, and he lays the facts out clearly.
49LesMiserables
> 48
Tim, both you and I know that the existence of Jesus relies on the gospels. Without these stories there is nothing.
Tim, both you and I know that the existence of Jesus relies on the gospels. Without these stories there is nothing.
50timspalding
I think Tim, you need to sort out the difference between Religious Study and Theology. Your example doesn't work.
No, I don't think so. I suspect that, like some others before, you imagine "theology" to be some sort of queery thaumaturgy, whereas in fact it's an umbrella term, with very considerable overlap with "religious studies." It's no accident that departments jump between the titles without changing the courses they offer. Looking at McGrath's work, he seems primarily occupied in historical theology—explaining the intellectual history of Christian thought. Apart from his work on science, he's not an original thinker in Christian philosophy. He reads texts in Greek, Latin, German and so forth and explains what people thought. Does he believe them sometimes? I suppose so.
No, I don't think so. I suspect that, like some others before, you imagine "theology" to be some sort of queery thaumaturgy, whereas in fact it's an umbrella term, with very considerable overlap with "religious studies." It's no accident that departments jump between the titles without changing the courses they offer. Looking at McGrath's work, he seems primarily occupied in historical theology—explaining the intellectual history of Christian thought. Apart from his work on science, he's not an original thinker in Christian philosophy. He reads texts in Greek, Latin, German and so forth and explains what people thought. Does he believe them sometimes? I suppose so.
51timspalding
>49 LesMiserables:
Not actually. You may "know" it, but I do not—nor does scholarship generally. The Letters of Paul were written about two decades before the first extant Gospel, that of Mark, and Josephus is clearly independent of the Gospels. You can't write a long biography from either. But existence? Certainly.
Not actually. You may "know" it, but I do not—nor does scholarship generally. The Letters of Paul were written about two decades before the first extant Gospel, that of Mark, and Josephus is clearly independent of the Gospels. You can't write a long biography from either. But existence? Certainly.
52LesMiserables
> 50
The vast majority of people would assert that Theology is a study about the questions around god etc
More like, "What is god thinking here?". The position is that of one who has already accepted god as being real.
Religious Studies is a Social Science.
The vast majority of people would assert that Theology is a study about the questions around god etc
More like, "What is god thinking here?". The position is that of one who has already accepted god as being real.
Religious Studies is a Social Science.
53timspalding
Wikipedia:
"Theology (from Ancient Greek Θεός meaning "God" and λόγος, -logy, meaning "study of") is the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truths, or the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university or school of divinity or seminary."
Merriam-Webster:
"the study of religious faith, practice, and experience"
etc.
Yes, it CAN mean questions about God. But, when an Anglican professor writes about it, it's going to be as much "what have people thought" than "what is God thinking here?" Indeed, I think, if you had some contact with theology as a field, you'd be surprised how little God role-playing goes on.
"Theology (from Ancient Greek Θεός meaning "God" and λόγος, -logy, meaning "study of") is the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truths, or the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university or school of divinity or seminary."
Merriam-Webster:
"the study of religious faith, practice, and experience"
etc.
Yes, it CAN mean questions about God. But, when an Anglican professor writes about it, it's going to be as much "what have people thought" than "what is God thinking here?" Indeed, I think, if you had some contact with theology as a field, you'd be surprised how little God role-playing goes on.
54LesMiserables
> 53
I was brought up a RC, attended seminary in my early teens etc
I have some knowledge of theology.
Time for confessions. Tim you're an apologist aren't you? :-)
I was brought up a RC, attended seminary in my early teens etc
I have some knowledge of theology.
Time for confessions. Tim you're an apologist aren't you? :-)
55LesMiserables
Back on track?
And back on Einstein...
In a March 24, 1954 letter, he is quoted as writing, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
http://www.livescience.com/23758-einstein-god-letter-auction.html
I suppose that is irrefutable.
And back on Einstein...
In a March 24, 1954 letter, he is quoted as writing, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
http://www.livescience.com/23758-einstein-god-letter-auction.html
I suppose that is irrefutable.
56timspalding
>54 LesMiserables:
Fair enough. I'm surprised that you think theology and religious studies are non-overlapping, however.
>55 LesMiserables:
Yes, although equally irrefutable are Einstein's various claims that he was or was attracted to being a pantheist. Now, pantheism is NOTHING like monotheism or normal theism, but it's not atheism either, and Einstein took great pains to say he was not an atheist.
> "Tim you're an apologist aren't you? :-)"
You won't believe it, perhaps, but when it comes to the issue of Jesus existing my pique is largely about my ancient history training—I dropped out of a PhD program before the dissertation. With that scholarly hat on I am perfectly willing to admit that the facts of Jesus' life and opinion are subject to major problems of interpretation and reconstruction, with a whole spectrum of probabilities attached, from "very probable" (eg., the basic timeframe and core biographical details; that Jesus was reputed to heal people, etc.) to "very murky" (eg., just who did Jesus say he was). Large parts are, with the methods of history alone, impossible to verify—miracles, the resurrection, etc. While there's a legitimate scholarly debate about just how much can be recovered and with what certainty, you need faith to get you the sort of account a Christian understands of Jesus' life. But existence? We're in the realm of anti-history, of people who think we don't know the dates of the Peloponnesian war because they come from texts copied "thousands of times," etc.
Fair enough. I'm surprised that you think theology and religious studies are non-overlapping, however.
>55 LesMiserables:
Yes, although equally irrefutable are Einstein's various claims that he was or was attracted to being a pantheist. Now, pantheism is NOTHING like monotheism or normal theism, but it's not atheism either, and Einstein took great pains to say he was not an atheist.
> "Tim you're an apologist aren't you? :-)"
You won't believe it, perhaps, but when it comes to the issue of Jesus existing my pique is largely about my ancient history training—I dropped out of a PhD program before the dissertation. With that scholarly hat on I am perfectly willing to admit that the facts of Jesus' life and opinion are subject to major problems of interpretation and reconstruction, with a whole spectrum of probabilities attached, from "very probable" (eg., the basic timeframe and core biographical details; that Jesus was reputed to heal people, etc.) to "very murky" (eg., just who did Jesus say he was). Large parts are, with the methods of history alone, impossible to verify—miracles, the resurrection, etc. While there's a legitimate scholarly debate about just how much can be recovered and with what certainty, you need faith to get you the sort of account a Christian understands of Jesus' life. But existence? We're in the realm of anti-history, of people who think we don't know the dates of the Peloponnesian war because they come from texts copied "thousands of times," etc.
57LesMiserables
> 56
I don't deny that there is overlap but in the main they deal with distinct subject matter.
On the subject of pantheism, I have always considered it a form of spiritualism, devoid of religion and really atheistic in essence.
I don't deny that there is overlap but in the main they deal with distinct subject matter.
On the subject of pantheism, I have always considered it a form of spiritualism, devoid of religion and really atheistic in essence.
58LesMiserables
> 56
I understand the danger here. I disagree though that it is anti-history
I also can reflect as a historian that I have prejudices that I am aware of and fight against when it comes to religion. This is different, very different, from succumbing to them.
A little bit how Breasted's Judeo-Christian monotheistic prejudices influences his analysis of Akenhaten.
edited to add - but Breasted did succumb.
I understand the danger here. I disagree though that it is anti-history
I also can reflect as a historian that I have prejudices that I am aware of and fight against when it comes to religion. This is different, very different, from succumbing to them.
A little bit how Breasted's Judeo-Christian monotheistic prejudices influences his analysis of Akenhaten.
edited to add - but Breasted did succumb.
59quicksiva
Wiki tes us:
“As a possible reaction to skepticism, dogmatics is a set of beliefs or doctrines that are established as undoubtedly in truth. They are regarded as (religious) truths relating closely to the nature of faith.
The term "dogmatic" can be used disparagingly to refer to any belief that is held stubbornly, including political and scientific beliefs.”
A notable use of the term can be found in the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. In his autobiography, What Mad Pursuit, Francis Crick wrote about his choice of the word dogma and some of the problems it caused him:
I called this idea the central dogma, for two reasons, I suspect. I had already used the obvious word hypothesis in the sequence hypothesis, and in addition I wanted to suggest that this new assumption was more central and more powerful. ... As it turned out, the use of the word dogma caused almost more trouble than it was worth.... Many years later Jacques Monod pointed out to me that I did not appear to understand the correct use of the word dogma, which is a belief that cannot be doubted. I did apprehend this in a vague sort of way but since I thought that all religious beliefs were without foundation, I used the word the way I myself thought about it, not as most of the world does, and simply applied it to a grand hypothesis that, however plausible, had little direct experimental support.
“As a possible reaction to skepticism, dogmatics is a set of beliefs or doctrines that are established as undoubtedly in truth. They are regarded as (religious) truths relating closely to the nature of faith.
The term "dogmatic" can be used disparagingly to refer to any belief that is held stubbornly, including political and scientific beliefs.”
A notable use of the term can be found in the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. In his autobiography, What Mad Pursuit, Francis Crick wrote about his choice of the word dogma and some of the problems it caused him:
I called this idea the central dogma, for two reasons, I suspect. I had already used the obvious word hypothesis in the sequence hypothesis, and in addition I wanted to suggest that this new assumption was more central and more powerful. ... As it turned out, the use of the word dogma caused almost more trouble than it was worth.... Many years later Jacques Monod pointed out to me that I did not appear to understand the correct use of the word dogma, which is a belief that cannot be doubted. I did apprehend this in a vague sort of way but since I thought that all religious beliefs were without foundation, I used the word the way I myself thought about it, not as most of the world does, and simply applied it to a grand hypothesis that, however plausible, had little direct experimental support.
60quicksiva
A great Catholic scholar has written:
It is always difficult to be objective about the life of the founder of a great religion. His personality is blurred by an aura of the miraculous, enhanced inevitably by the needs of the believers to, above all, believe. The earliest biographers, those closest to the time of his life, are preoccupied not with historical facts, but with glorifying in every way the memory of one they believe to have been a Messenger of God or even God himself. The result is a rich accretion of myth and miracle, mysterious portents and heavenly signs, of residues from other religions and religious traditions.
These early biographies cannot pass as history; only the propaganda of an expanding faith. It is the task of the historian to locate and explicate the truth that lies behind the myth, to reconstruct the events of a real, as distinct from a symbolic, life. At the root of the effort rests the historians faith that the task can be accomplished at all.
This book is the result of more than thirty years of study and writing about the world of antiquity, a world that changed markedly with the coming of Jesus Christ. I cannot say with any exactitude just when it was that I began to realize that some of the religious beliefs which heretofore I had associated with my own Catholic faith bore a remarkable similarity to those developed by Egyptian theologians more than two millennia before Jesus appeared on the stage of history. Or when I first became aware of the remarkable intellectual integration with which Egyptian priests thought and wrote about such subjects as creation, the soul, resurrection, judgement beyond the grave, and eternal life.
Egyptian thinking on these subjects appeared to me to be theologically indistinguishable from the beliefs that formed the core of my own religious faith, a faith that held that Christianity was a singular historical event without human precedent.
Richard Gabriel (2005-04-12). Jesus The Egyptian: The Origins of Christianity And The Psychology of Christ (Kindle Locations 76-89). iUniverse. Kindle Edition.
It is always difficult to be objective about the life of the founder of a great religion. His personality is blurred by an aura of the miraculous, enhanced inevitably by the needs of the believers to, above all, believe. The earliest biographers, those closest to the time of his life, are preoccupied not with historical facts, but with glorifying in every way the memory of one they believe to have been a Messenger of God or even God himself. The result is a rich accretion of myth and miracle, mysterious portents and heavenly signs, of residues from other religions and religious traditions.
These early biographies cannot pass as history; only the propaganda of an expanding faith. It is the task of the historian to locate and explicate the truth that lies behind the myth, to reconstruct the events of a real, as distinct from a symbolic, life. At the root of the effort rests the historians faith that the task can be accomplished at all.
This book is the result of more than thirty years of study and writing about the world of antiquity, a world that changed markedly with the coming of Jesus Christ. I cannot say with any exactitude just when it was that I began to realize that some of the religious beliefs which heretofore I had associated with my own Catholic faith bore a remarkable similarity to those developed by Egyptian theologians more than two millennia before Jesus appeared on the stage of history. Or when I first became aware of the remarkable intellectual integration with which Egyptian priests thought and wrote about such subjects as creation, the soul, resurrection, judgement beyond the grave, and eternal life.
Egyptian thinking on these subjects appeared to me to be theologically indistinguishable from the beliefs that formed the core of my own religious faith, a faith that held that Christianity was a singular historical event without human precedent.
Richard Gabriel (2005-04-12). Jesus The Egyptian: The Origins of Christianity And The Psychology of Christ (Kindle Locations 76-89). iUniverse. Kindle Edition.
61Tid
40
That's plain silly. There's no evidence that Gautama Buddha, or Lao Tse, existed either, outside of what they are principally known for. The evidence for the existence of Moses is sketchier still. The fact is, we would probably say the same about Socrates were it not for chance surviving references outside Plato (i.e. Xenophon and Aristophanes).
I have no problem with the existence of a peripatetic rabbi called Joshua (and subsequently Jesus) wandering around Galilee in the 1st Century AD - there were many of them.
But if you mean "the Jesus of popular myth and imagination", I tend to agree. There is no independent evidence outside Christianity for that particular Jesus, and the dogma surrounding him is a creation of the religion that exists in his name.
That's plain silly. There's no evidence that Gautama Buddha, or Lao Tse, existed either, outside of what they are principally known for. The evidence for the existence of Moses is sketchier still. The fact is, we would probably say the same about Socrates were it not for chance surviving references outside Plato (i.e. Xenophon and Aristophanes).
I have no problem with the existence of a peripatetic rabbi called Joshua (and subsequently Jesus) wandering around Galilee in the 1st Century AD - there were many of them.
But if you mean "the Jesus of popular myth and imagination", I tend to agree. There is no independent evidence outside Christianity for that particular Jesus, and the dogma surrounding him is a creation of the religion that exists in his name.
62timspalding
>61 Tid:
Socrates is a good comparandum. Even if we didn't have Xenophon and Aristophanes, it would still be very hard to imagine Plato invented him, and then created this huge movement around an invention. I would note, however, that Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes amount to three independent sources, two of them from within Socrates' circle of admiration and the third almost entirely without reliable information. If we could dismiss anything said by supporters, we'd have almost nothing to say about him either.
Socrates is a good comparandum. Even if we didn't have Xenophon and Aristophanes, it would still be very hard to imagine Plato invented him, and then created this huge movement around an invention. I would note, however, that Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes amount to three independent sources, two of them from within Socrates' circle of admiration and the third almost entirely without reliable information. If we could dismiss anything said by supporters, we'd have almost nothing to say about him either.
63LesMiserables
> 62 Some quotes...
When the Church mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and New Testaments are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered, abridged or dressed them up.
-Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus... The library of such books has grown since then. But when we come to examine them, one startling fact confronts us: all of these books relate to a personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of contemporary information -- not one! By accepted tradition he was born in the reign of Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he was a subject. In the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life.
-Moncure D. Conway 1832 - 1907 (Modern Thought)
It is only in comparatively modern times that the possibility was considered that Jesus does not belong to history at all.
-J.M. Robertson (Pagan Christs)
Whether considered as the God made human, or as man made divine, this character never existed as a person.
-Gerald Massey, Egyptologist and historical scholar (Gerald Massey's Lectures: Gnostic and Historic Christianity, 1900)
On Josephus
Josephus -
Josephus is the first non-Christian writer to mention Jesus. He does this in Books 18 and 20 of his Antiquities, from about 93 AD. It is worth giving the reference in Book 18-
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ . And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
For two centuries no Christian used this passage, although many of them quoted Josephus. For example, Origen quoted Josephus when writing 250,000 words against the pagan writer Celsus but he never uses this passage even when it would have been most useful. In Chapter 6 of Book 1 of 'Contra Celsum', ' Would not Origen have loved to show Josephus as writing that Jesus performed wonderful works?
It is admitted that the 2 passages of Josephus were tampered with by Christians. This rules them out altogether as evidence. If a prosecution lawyer in a court case tried to introduce evidence that had been tampered with by prosecution witnesses, that evidence would be rejected.
It is worth pointing out that any Christian scribe who had just copied out 17 books of Josephus would be familiar with his style and easily able to express Christian thoughts in Josephan language.
(http://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-no-credible-historical-proof-of-the-Biblical-Jesus./1/)
When the Church mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and New Testaments are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered, abridged or dressed them up.
-Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus... The library of such books has grown since then. But when we come to examine them, one startling fact confronts us: all of these books relate to a personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of contemporary information -- not one! By accepted tradition he was born in the reign of Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he was a subject. In the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life.
-Moncure D. Conway 1832 - 1907 (Modern Thought)
It is only in comparatively modern times that the possibility was considered that Jesus does not belong to history at all.
-J.M. Robertson (Pagan Christs)
Whether considered as the God made human, or as man made divine, this character never existed as a person.
-Gerald Massey, Egyptologist and historical scholar (Gerald Massey's Lectures: Gnostic and Historic Christianity, 1900)
On Josephus
Josephus -
Josephus is the first non-Christian writer to mention Jesus. He does this in Books 18 and 20 of his Antiquities, from about 93 AD. It is worth giving the reference in Book 18-
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ . And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
For two centuries no Christian used this passage, although many of them quoted Josephus. For example, Origen quoted Josephus when writing 250,000 words against the pagan writer Celsus but he never uses this passage even when it would have been most useful. In Chapter 6 of Book 1 of 'Contra Celsum', ' Would not Origen have loved to show Josephus as writing that Jesus performed wonderful works?
It is admitted that the 2 passages of Josephus were tampered with by Christians. This rules them out altogether as evidence. If a prosecution lawyer in a court case tried to introduce evidence that had been tampered with by prosecution witnesses, that evidence would be rejected.
It is worth pointing out that any Christian scribe who had just copied out 17 books of Josephus would be familiar with his style and easily able to express Christian thoughts in Josephan language.
(http://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-no-credible-historical-proof-of-the-Biblical-Jesus./1/)
66timspalding
You're seriously going to quote Thomas Paine on a question of ancient scholarship?
67Tid
63
You seem to delight in ignoring my posts. In 61 above, I said there is no clear evidence for the historical existence of other religious leaders either, such as Buddha, Lao Tse, Moses.
As for Jesus, you need to remember that he would have been known as Joshua in Jewish Palestine, and the name 'Jesus' is a Graeco-Roman transliteration of the Jewish name. Josephus was writing at the end of the 1st Century, by which time the Gospels - written in Greek - would have been largely extant.
As for the great Roman writers (yes, it was indeed the Golden Age of Latin literature), remember that Judaea was a far-flung, remote (in the social and political sense), and insular region that was not welcoming to outsiders. Why would any Roman writer have bothered about one out of many peripatetic rabbis wandering this obscure land, performing healing acts and preaching a new slant on his own religion? Hanina ben Dosa was another healer doing similar things, but known only from Jewish writings, not from non-Jewish contemporary historians. Hanina wasn't executed, but many people were crucified by the Romans - how much do we know about them? As for Jesus, Josephus seems to be the only Jewish writer who shows any interest (probably due to the 'heretical' claims being made by the now-Gentile religion of Christianity).
The problem is, you are speaking of a Jesus defined by Christianity over the centuries. THAT Jesus did not exist in the 1st Century, and by the time that figure evolved, the writers were either Christian, or were influenced in their writing by the existence of Christianity with few original sources.
You seem to delight in ignoring my posts. In 61 above, I said there is no clear evidence for the historical existence of other religious leaders either, such as Buddha, Lao Tse, Moses.
As for Jesus, you need to remember that he would have been known as Joshua in Jewish Palestine, and the name 'Jesus' is a Graeco-Roman transliteration of the Jewish name. Josephus was writing at the end of the 1st Century, by which time the Gospels - written in Greek - would have been largely extant.
As for the great Roman writers (yes, it was indeed the Golden Age of Latin literature), remember that Judaea was a far-flung, remote (in the social and political sense), and insular region that was not welcoming to outsiders. Why would any Roman writer have bothered about one out of many peripatetic rabbis wandering this obscure land, performing healing acts and preaching a new slant on his own religion? Hanina ben Dosa was another healer doing similar things, but known only from Jewish writings, not from non-Jewish contemporary historians. Hanina wasn't executed, but many people were crucified by the Romans - how much do we know about them? As for Jesus, Josephus seems to be the only Jewish writer who shows any interest (probably due to the 'heretical' claims being made by the now-Gentile religion of Christianity).
The problem is, you are speaking of a Jesus defined by Christianity over the centuries. THAT Jesus did not exist in the 1st Century, and by the time that figure evolved, the writers were either Christian, or were influenced in their writing by the existence of Christianity with few original sources.
68timspalding
I'm totally amazed why you'd answer a vexed question about ancient history by citing a 18th century pamphleteer who knew no ancient languages (Thomas Paine), a 19th century abolitionist (Conway), an "English poet and self-educated Egyptologist" writing in 1900 (Massey), and a British politician writing in 1903. Four sources, not one of them a professional historian or philologist and not one of them in the last hundred years.
With all due respect this sort of thing is due absolutely no respect. It is a joke. It is the lamest start to a historical argument I've seen on LibraryThing. Good grief, at least the creationists, 9/11 conspiracists and Holocaust-deniers on LT at least cite books written in the last few decades!
It is admitted that the 2 passages of Josephus were tampered with by Christians. This rules them out altogether as evidence. If a prosecution lawyer in a court case tried to introduce evidence that had been tampered with by prosecution witnesses, that evidence would be rejected.
It's rather unlikely that Christian tampered with the second of the two, which mentions briefly and in passing the execution of James, the brother of Jesus. If they had, you'd have expected them to say something nice about either of them, or at least flesh things out a little.
As for the first, it's certain that Christians "tampered" with it—as likely to be marginal emendations as actual "tampering," but I suppose the distinction is lost on many. But that's by no means the end of the story for ancient historians, who regularly work with texts that have been emended, rewritten, compressed or expanded. On the contrary, they are adept at teasing apart the various strands in a text. In this case most academic historians think that an original core can be retrieved. Many go so far as to use the tools of philology to extract the pre-emended text.
As for your notion of prosecution lawyers, that's not how ancient history works. A historian of, say, Hannibal, doesn't work passage by passage asking if a jury of regular citizens would accept the factual truth of it beyond a reasonable doubt.
With all due respect this sort of thing is due absolutely no respect. It is a joke. It is the lamest start to a historical argument I've seen on LibraryThing. Good grief, at least the creationists, 9/11 conspiracists and Holocaust-deniers on LT at least cite books written in the last few decades!
It is admitted that the 2 passages of Josephus were tampered with by Christians. This rules them out altogether as evidence. If a prosecution lawyer in a court case tried to introduce evidence that had been tampered with by prosecution witnesses, that evidence would be rejected.
It's rather unlikely that Christian tampered with the second of the two, which mentions briefly and in passing the execution of James, the brother of Jesus. If they had, you'd have expected them to say something nice about either of them, or at least flesh things out a little.
As for the first, it's certain that Christians "tampered" with it—as likely to be marginal emendations as actual "tampering," but I suppose the distinction is lost on many. But that's by no means the end of the story for ancient historians, who regularly work with texts that have been emended, rewritten, compressed or expanded. On the contrary, they are adept at teasing apart the various strands in a text. In this case most academic historians think that an original core can be retrieved. Many go so far as to use the tools of philology to extract the pre-emended text.
As for your notion of prosecution lawyers, that's not how ancient history works. A historian of, say, Hannibal, doesn't work passage by passage asking if a jury of regular citizens would accept the factual truth of it beyond a reasonable doubt.
69quicksiva
Speaking of the “the redaction of the text of Genesis that has come down to us from Priestly circles, noted translator, Robert Alter tells us that “In this version of cosmogony, God, as Einstein was to put it in his own argument against randomness, decidedly does not play dice with the universe, though from a moral or historical point of view that is exactly what He does in J’s story by creating man and woman with their dangerous freedom of choice while imposing upon them the responsibility of a solemn prohibition.”
Alter, Robert (2011-04-26). The Art of Biblical Narrative (p. 179). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
Alter, Robert (2011-04-26). The Art of Biblical Narrative (p. 179). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
70LesMiserables
Christian defenders as early as Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE) never cited it. Origen (185-254), who dealt extensively with Josephus, wrote that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the messiah nor proclaim him as such.� Eusebius, in 324 CE, first mentions this passage (twice), and is likely the forger of it. Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, etc. – in all their defenses against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus' wondrous words.
Please note that both Herod and John the Baptist are in Book 18 - a forgery by Eusebius.
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus -
Writes, "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he Claudius expelled them from Rome."� (circa 120 CE) -
Derivative from heresay, useless for evidence that Jesus was an historical person. Chrestus was itself a common name, particularly for slaves, meaning good or useful.
debate.org
Please note that both Herod and John the Baptist are in Book 18 - a forgery by Eusebius.
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus -
Writes, "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he Claudius expelled them from Rome."� (circa 120 CE) -
Derivative from heresay, useless for evidence that Jesus was an historical person. Chrestus was itself a common name, particularly for slaves, meaning good or useful.
debate.org
71timspalding
I'm sorry you apparently believe your arguments, but, as with creationists and birthers, they're not worth refuting. Let us agree to disagree.
72Tid
70
I can only assume that rather than ignoring my posts, you have absolutely no answer to them? That is what I shall console myself with, unless you actually bother to address them.
I can only assume that rather than ignoring my posts, you have absolutely no answer to them? That is what I shall console myself with, unless you actually bother to address them.
73nathanielcampbell
>70 LesMiserables:: Who are you trying to convince? Nobody in this thread but you has asserted that the spurious passage in Josephus should be taken seriously.
Or do you regularly construct straw men arguments so that you have something to cut down?
Or do you regularly construct straw men arguments so that you have something to cut down?
74timspalding
Nobody in this thread has asserted that the world is older than 6,000 years! I win!
75LesMiserables
> 72
LOL
Isn't that being rather conceited. Could it perhaps be that they are not worth the time? I'm not saying that, but there are more than one possibility.
LOL
Isn't that being rather conceited. Could it perhaps be that they are not worth the time? I'm not saying that, but there are more than one possibility.
76LesMiserables
> 71
More straw men being constructed today, I see Tim. Good form. :-)
More straw men being constructed today, I see Tim. Good form. :-)
77Tid
75
Not so much conceited as ... well, in a "real life" discussion group (rather than the internet), if someone replied to points you'd made and you ignored them, wouldn't you think it somewhat rude?
I'll see your LOL and raise you WTF
Not so much conceited as ... well, in a "real life" discussion group (rather than the internet), if someone replied to points you'd made and you ignored them, wouldn't you think it somewhat rude?
I'll see your LOL and raise you WTF
78LesMiserables
> 77
Now, now: I see you are getting angry. And please remember this is NOT real life, it IS an internet forum and yes you are nor anyone else here is important enough in my life to refresh my browser every two minutes on hang on every post, poised to reply.
WFT? Now that is rude.
I can see this is turning nasty so.... bye. Not interested.
Now, now: I see you are getting angry. And please remember this is NOT real life, it IS an internet forum and yes you are nor anyone else here is important enough in my life to refresh my browser every two minutes on hang on every post, poised to reply.
WFT? Now that is rude.
I can see this is turning nasty so.... bye. Not interested.
79Tid
78
And the main problem with the internet? You can't see someone's facial expression nor hear the sound of their voice. My "See your...raise you" remark was meant to be taken humorously.
Bye.
And the main problem with the internet? You can't see someone's facial expression nor hear the sound of their voice. My "See your...raise you" remark was meant to be taken humorously.
Bye.
80timspalding
Apologies, H, for any offense I caused. While I really think Jesus-denial is nutty, I should avoid being quite so dismissive. Honestly, however, I'm a bit exhausted arguing something something of that nature.
81quicksiva
But a couple of bona fide scholars— not professors teaching religious studies in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D. in the field of New Testament— have taken this position (Jesus denial) and written about it. Their books may not be known to most of the general public interested in questions related to Jesus, the Gospels, or the early Christian church, but they do occupy a noteworthy niche as a (very) small but (often) loud minority voice. Once you tune in to this voice, you quickly learn just how persistent and vociferous it can be.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (p. 3). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (p. 3). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
83timspalding
>82 carusmm:
Einstein was at best an atheist with reserve. On various occasions he said he was an atheist, on others that he explicitly refused the label, preferring both "agnostic" and "pantheist." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein
Einstein was at best an atheist with reserve. On various occasions he said he was an atheist, on others that he explicitly refused the label, preferring both "agnostic" and "pantheist." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein
